On Wed, Oct  3, 2012 at 01:53:28PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Yes, but those framework libraries are typically supposed to prevent
> > such problems from being seen by applications calling them.
> 
> How exactly would a library prevent such problems?  In particular,
> let's see a proposal for how libpq might make it look like a fork
> was transparent for an open connection.

I guess that is impossible.

> > This is
> > certainly sloppy practice on Apple's part, and it leave us wondering if
> > we are using anything that might be a problem.  The bottom line is that
> > we don't know.
> 
> > Libraries are supposed to document these limitations, as we do with
> > libpq.  I wonder if they just documented fork() and now don't feel they
> > need to document these limitations per-library.
> 
> Do we know that they *didn't* document such issues per-library?
> Mentioning the risk under fork() too doesn't seem unreasonable.
> 
> Not trying to sound like an Apple apologist, but I see a whole lot of
> bashing going on here on the basis of darn little evidence.

Well, ideally if Apple is going to brand a Unix function as unsafe, it
would be good to mention which libraries are unsafe.  I have no idea if
they are documenting the problems in the libraries themselves.

I guess my point is that the fork() warning was too vague.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

• Re: do we EXEC_BACKEND on Mac OS X? at 2012-10-03 17:53:28 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: do we EXEC_BACKEND on Mac OS X? at 2012-10-03 21:52:00 from Martijn van Oosterhout

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2012-10-03 18:04:04
	Subject: Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2012-10-03 17:56:01
	Subject: Re: CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT EXISTS